If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   In a sure sign that 2012 is truly the end-of-times, Rick Santorum gets behind ACLU effort to make it easier for blacks to vote   (tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 58
    More: Spiffy, Rick Santorum, ACLU, drug crimes, pushback, Rick Scott, Mitt Romney, bipartisan support  
•       •       •

1242 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Jan 2012 at 1:13 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



58 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-01-20 01:16:27 AM
something about a stopped watch
 
2012-01-20 01:20:13 AM

OneTimed: something about a stopped watch


Considering his medeval views about most other things, a stopped sundial?
 
2012-01-20 01:20:25 AM
What if they're black AND gay?
 
2012-01-20 01:22:20 AM
I think a lot of people would find themselves agreeing with the ACLU if they took the time to look into the cases, instead of going by what they heard about them from complete and utter morons.
 
2012-01-20 01:23:31 AM
Sorry why don't convicted felons get the ability to vote again?

No one has ever really explained this. Aren't felons still US citizens?

Also, it seems to me something than can be used to rig elections (and has been used this way in the past).
 
2012-01-20 01:23:51 AM
You know, even though he is part of the Christian Talibam that does not recognize the separation between church and state, and a hateful homophobe, he has good points too.

He seems like an earnest otherwise likeable guy that overcome odds and was actually screwed over the the Republican party in Iowa. Without the Christian freighttrain in his head he is actually more likeable and electable then Bachmann or Gingrich. Not to mention I can feel sorry for him about the Dan Savage 'Santorum' smear at times.

Then we go back to railing on homosexuals and bringing Christianity back to the United States. He deserves it.
 
2012-01-20 01:26:36 AM
In a sure sign that 2012 is truly the end-of-times, Rick Santorum gets behind ACLU effort to make it easier for blacks BLEHs to vote

Fixed that for ya, subby.
 
2012-01-20 01:26:42 AM

Enemabag Jones: You know, even though he is part of the Christian Talibam that does not recognize the separation between church and state, and a hateful homophobe, he has good points too.

He seems like an earnest otherwise likeable guy that overcome odds and was actually screwed over the the Republican party in Iowa. Without the Christian freighttrain in his head he is actually more likeable and electable then Bachmann or Gingrich. Not to mention I can feel sorry for him about the Dan Savage 'Santorum' smear at times.

Then we go back to railing on homosexuals and bringing Christianity back to the United States. He deserves it.


And don't forget banning abortion even though it was ok for his wife to have one.
 
2012-01-20 01:28:11 AM

Alphax: OneTimed: something about a stopped watch

Considering his medeval views about most other things, a stopped sundial?


I should just stop trying to figure out how one stops a sundial, and smile and nod shouldn't I?
 
2012-01-20 01:29:05 AM
That we still need to make an effort so that blacks can vote is sad.
 
2012-01-20 01:29:30 AM
blacks have a higher rate of homo hatred than whites.
 
2012-01-20 01:29:31 AM

organizmx: What if they're black AND gay?


If you're black, you don't have to "come out" to your parents about it.
 
2012-01-20 01:30:30 AM

Corvus: Also, it seems to me something than can be used to rig elections (and has been used this way in the past).


This is how Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris stole the 2000 election. Not only did they keep convicted felons from voting, but a bunch of non-felons with similar names were also prevented from voting.

I can understand why convicted felons should never have certain rights restored. Obviously, if you been convicted of a violent crime, then you should never be allowed to own a firearm again. Maybe you shouldn't be allowed to work in certain security sensitive fields. But not allowing someone to vote after they pay their debt to society just seems petty and vindictive. Which is probably why most Republicans support it.
 
2012-01-20 01:31:22 AM
Given America's voting patterns over the past few national elections, getting your voting rights revoked isn't much of a threat for most people.
 
2012-01-20 01:32:28 AM

LordJiro: Alphax: OneTimed: something about a stopped watch

Considering his medeval views about most other things, a stopped sundial?

I should just stop trying to figure out how one stops a sundial, and smile and nod shouldn't I?


Yeah, best not to think about it.. perhaps it's in Seattle and rarely gets any sun?
 
2012-01-20 01:33:21 AM
Santorum's "Oh, Snap!" moment:

"This is a huge deal in the African-American community because we have very high rates of incarceration, disproportionately high rates, particularly with drug crimes in the African-American community," Santorum said. He asked Romney if he supported allowing felons to have their rights restored, and Romney answered that violent felons should never be able to vote.

"Very interesting you should say that, because in the state of Massachusetts when you were governor, the law was that not only could violent felons vote after they exhausted their sentences, but they could vote while they were on probation and parole, which was a more liberal position that I took when I voted for the bill in Congress," Santorum responded.
 
2012-01-20 01:33:42 AM
Santorum still sucks. His rhetoric is 100% "I'm the anti-Romney", and 0% wanting the advancement of colored people.
 
2012-01-20 01:35:55 AM

LordJiro: Alphax: OneTimed: something about a stopped watch

Considering his medeval views about most other things, a stopped sundial?

I should just stop trying to figure out how one stops a sundial, and smile and nod shouldn't I?


Uhm.... clouds, night time, lots of ways, oh Wise One.

/Yes, you should just continue to nod like the average tard does.

//Are you really that stupid, Buttercup?

///Cheers!
 
2012-01-20 01:36:25 AM

CowboyNinjaD: Corvus: Also, it seems to me something than can be used to rig elections (and has been used this way in the past).

This is how Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris stole the 2000 election. Not only did they keep convicted felons from voting, but a bunch of non-felons with similar names were also prevented from voting.

I can understand why convicted felons should never have certain rights restored. Obviously, if you been convicted of a violent crime, then you should never be allowed to own a firearm again. Maybe you shouldn't be allowed to work in certain security sensitive fields. But not allowing someone to vote after they pay their debt to society just seems petty and vindictive. Which is probably why most Republicans people support it.


As much as I dislike Republicans, pettiness isn't exclusively their territory. The idea that prison is for revenge rather than rehabilitation is very widespread.
 
2012-01-20 01:36:47 AM
If all the blacks get to vote, all they'll do is enact laws that give them bigger TVs. Rush Limbaugh said so.
 
2012-01-20 01:37:37 AM

Corvus: Sorry why don't convicted felons get the ability to vote again?

No one has ever really explained this. Aren't felons still US citizens?

Also, it seems to me something than can be used to rig elections (and has been used this way in the past).


A quick and totally unreliable search shows me that there is no real good reason except tradition and British common law. Historically, voting was a "privilege" bestowed upon one by the state and the theory was that felons had divested themselves of this privilege by being such evil people, hence they didn't deserve to participate in a society they'd turned their backs on.

I guess that made sense back in the Olde Countree where comparatively few people were serious felons (because the penalty for most felonies was hanging--none of them lived) and nobody cared if they voted or not. It's only become a problem lately in the last 50 years or so when we've got a lot of people in the slammer who are suddenly permanently disenfranchised for no good reason.

The reason its been so hard to get things changed is because felony disenfranchisement laws are not presumptively unconstitutional; there is no discriminatory intent; and just because there is a discriminatory IMPACT doesn't make it de facto discriminatory . It works out well for certain politicians, but it's hard to show that large numbers of minorities are being jailed specifically so they won't be able to vote a certain way later, you see?
 
2012-01-20 01:40:08 AM

Kevin72: organizmx: What if they're black AND gay?

If you're black, you don't have to "come out" to your parents about it.


But your parents might have to come out to you...

img11.imageshack.us
 
2012-01-20 01:40:12 AM
FTA: "Until recently, legislation to ease criminal disenfrancisement laws had been moving forward with bipartisan support, according to the ACLU's Deborah J. Vagins."

Would you like to buy a vowel?
 
2012-01-20 01:46:00 AM
How about we stop taking away the right to vote, If they are in prison fine, but once they are out they are back in society and should get a say in society. Voting is a Constitutional right, It's not a privilege
 
2012-01-20 01:47:00 AM

organizmx: What if they're black AND gay?


That's called the down low.
 
2012-01-20 01:52:38 AM

LordJiro: CowboyNinjaD: Corvus: Also, it seems to me something than can be used to rig elections (and has been used this way in the past).

This is how Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris stole the 2000 election. Not only did they keep convicted felons from voting, but a bunch of non-felons with similar names were also prevented from voting.

I can understand why convicted felons should never have certain rights restored. Obviously, if you been convicted of a violent crime, then you should never be allowed to own a firearm again. Maybe you shouldn't be allowed to work in certain security sensitive fields. But not allowing someone to vote after they pay their debt to society just seems petty and vindictive. Which is probably why most Republicans people support it.

As much as I dislike Republicans, pettiness isn't exclusively their territory. The idea that prison is for revenge rather than rehabilitation is very widespread.



I'm not just talking about the prison stuff. The endless crop of anti-abortion laws that show up every year in state legislatures is a perfect example. Conservatives can't constitutionally make abortion illegal, so they pass as many petty bullshiat laws as they can to punish a woman who might want to get an abortion.

And you see similar tactics on other issues, like gay rights, unions, education, etc. And remember last summer when the tea party assholes held the US economy hostage, even after the Democrats gave them just about everything they wanted? Those motherfarkers should be in prison right now.
 
2012-01-20 01:53:56 AM
Broken clock moment for him. As good as it is to see him support this, he's still a crazy fundamentalist.
 
2012-01-20 01:56:10 AM
I'm sure the only reason Santorum gets behind anything is for the chance to see a bit of himself when it's finished.

:-/
 
2012-01-20 02:02:39 AM
This reminds me of an Onion article. Republicans Urge Minorities To Get Out And Vote On Nov. 3 (new window)
 
2012-01-20 02:09:40 AM

0Icky0: I think a lot of people would find themselves agreeing with the ACLU if they took the time to look into the cases, instead of going by what they heard about them from complete and utter morons.


Very much this. My favorite example of shooting oneself in the foot because of the irrational hatred of the ACLU is that back in the early '90s the ACLU made the offer to pro-life groups in Florida to get involved in fighting the protest buffer zone injunctions keeping people from protesting within a certain distance of abortion clinics. The ACLU obviously wanted to get involved because protest buffer zones are a terrible precedent for free speech, but the leaders of the pro-life groups turned them down because they're the ACLU and in their minds, ACLU==Bad. Instead, Mathew Staver of the Liberty Council took the case, that's the case that he used to make a name for himself and his organization, but because he's pretty much an idiot, when he took it all the way to the Supreme Court he lost. If they had just let the ACLU get involved like they wanted to, the ACLU probably would have won the case, but because they went with an inferior attorney who was looking to make a name for his right-wing group, they lost in the Supreme Court and the entire country lost just a little bit of our free speech rights because of it.

On topic, if these morons would just stop for a minute and think, today it's the voting rights of minorities that the ACLU is protecting, but tomorrow it might be their voting rights that are threatened.
 
2012-01-20 02:11:28 AM
Actually, it'll be a sign of the end times when Ron "Hate Whitey Day" Paul tries to make it easier for blacks to vote.

Unless he realizes that's part of the coming race war, of course.
 
2012-01-20 02:12:22 AM
So the ACLU is now full of santorum, which came from behind?
 
2012-01-20 02:14:01 AM

rynthetyn: 0Icky0: I think a lot of people would find themselves agreeing with the ACLU if they took the time to look into the cases, instead of going by what they heard about them from complete and utter morons.

Very much this. My favorite example of shooting oneself in the foot because of the irrational hatred of the ACLU is that back in the early '90s the ACLU made the offer to pro-life groups in Florida to get involved in fighting the protest buffer zone injunctions keeping people from protesting within a certain distance of abortion clinics. The ACLU obviously wanted to get involved because protest buffer zones are a terrible precedent for free speech, but the leaders of the pro-life groups turned them down because they're the ACLU and in their minds, ACLU==Bad. Instead, Mathew Staver of the Liberty Council took the case, that's the case that he used to make a name for himself and his organization, but because he's pretty much an idiot, when he took it all the way to the Supreme Court he lost. If they had just let the ACLU get involved like they wanted to, the ACLU probably would have won the case, but because they went with an inferior attorney who was looking to make a name for his right-wing group, they lost in the Supreme Court and the entire country lost just a little bit of our free speech rights because of it.

On topic, if these morons would just stop for a minute and think, today it's the voting rights of minorities that the ACLU is protecting, but tomorrow it might be their voting rights that are threatened.


The problem is that people like those only believe in the Bill of Rights insofar as they are not offended by how other people exercise those rights. Since the ACLU will take unpopular positions that are nonetheless constitutional, too many people show their true patriotism by railing against the ACLU instead of taking an interest in protecting the constitution.
 
2012-01-20 02:17:17 AM

BSABSVR: organizmx: What if they're black AND gay?

That's called the down low.


Or as Frothy Boy knows it, Chocolate Thursday at Big Rod's Mine Shaft.
 
2012-01-20 03:35:57 AM

organizmx: What if they're black AND gay?


They can still vote.

Subby needs to pay attention. Perry is the racist one. Sanatorium is the frothy mix of semen and feces which sometimes results from anal sex.
 
2012-01-20 06:47:07 AM
Are we sure he didn't mean blah people?
 
2012-01-20 07:19:13 AM
I think I know his strategy here:

fc08.deviantart.net
 
2012-01-20 07:24:56 AM

foo monkey: organizmx: What if they're black AND gay?

They can still vote.

Subby needs to pay attention. Perry is the racist one. Sanatorium is the frothy mix of semen and feces which sometimes results from anal sex.


Can you name one in the field that does not have racist baggage???
 
2012-01-20 07:38:18 AM

Corvus: Sorry why don't convicted felons get the ability to vote again


Only a few states completely disenfranchise felons. According ot the Brennan Center for Voting rights:

Permanent disenfranchisement for all felons: IA, FL, VA, KY
Permanent disenfranchisement for some classes of felons: AL, AZ, DE, MS, NV, TN, WY
Voting rights restored on completion of sentence, including parole, probation: AK, AR, GA, ID, KS, LA, MD, M N, MO, NE,* NJ, NM, NC, OK, SC, TX, WA,
WV, WI
Voting rights restored on discharge from prison, completion of parole (probationers may vote): CA, CO, CT, NY, SD
Voting rights restored on discharge from prison: DC, HI, IL, IN, MA, MI, MT, NH, ND, OH, OR, PA, RI, UT
No disenfranchisement for conviction of a felony: ME, VT

Source: Brennan Center for Voting Rights (PDF)

In fact, a large portion of the "ZOMG VOTER FRAUD" cases that Republicans crow about are cases where people with felony convictions mistakenly register to vote. (Source: In 5-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud - New York Times, 4/12/2007) Typically this happens through Motor Voter-style registrations where a person might simply check a box. The New York Times article shows one case where a person registered illegally despite using his probation identification card to apply for a drivers license.
 
2012-01-20 07:46:17 AM
disenfranchising felons had an unfair disparate impact on African-American communities


You think maybe Blacks can stop committing felonies? That would work, too.
 
2012-01-20 07:58:04 AM
Santorum is no fool. He's reaching for the religious vote, and I'm sure he is aware of the statistical prevalence of religiosity among prison inmates - statistically, they are the most religious group in our society ( unless you choose a "trick" group, like nuns).
Go where the votes are.
 
2012-01-20 07:59:06 AM
You know, the ACLU is not specifically a liberal organization. It's a Bill of Rights (1st Amendment in particular) special interest group that has sided with conservatives many times in the past. For example, the ACLU frequently fights for the rights of Christians to wear Christian shirts and bring their Bibles to public school, so long as the school itself isn't organizing it. They have also fought for the right of the Klan to hold rallies in largely minority boroughs of major cities. I believe they tend to be on the side of gun ownership as well, not for the pedestrian reason of home invasion, but as a deterrence against tyranny.
 
2012-01-20 08:16:11 AM
I saw that in the debate and was sad that me and Ole Rick had a common viewpoint on something. But the thing that made me so annoyed watching it after that was Romney's replies all included the words "violent felons" or violence. I know its much to expect debates to have legitimate conversations, but the whole time Romney was just accusing Rick of being ok to let violent felons vote when Frothy was clearly limiting it to people who'd paid their debt to society, finished probation, etc.

It was about then when I started a debate drinking game...
 
2012-01-20 08:33:30 AM

rynthetyn: back in the early '90s the ACLU made the offer to pro-life groups in Florida to get involved in fighting the protest buffer zone injunctions keeping people from protesting within a certain distance of abortion clinics. The ACLU obviously wanted to get involved because protest buffer zones are a terrible precedent for free speech,


No they're not.

Free speech buffer zone injunctions are a sound compromise between competing constitutional values. The government has always had the right to impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech. You've no right to speed down a residential in the middle of the night blaring "Born in the USA" out of giant speakers in the back of your truck, no matter what your intended political message. Neither do anti-choice protesters have any right to use "free speech" as an excuse to obstruct the constitutionally protected activity that takes place in abortion clinics, or to harass people who seek to use their services.
 
2012-01-20 08:34:15 AM

RoxtarRyan: Santorum's "Oh, Snap!" moment:

"This is a huge deal in the African-American community because we have very high rates of incarceration, disproportionately high rates, particularly with drug crimes in the African-American community," Santorum said. He asked Romney if he supported allowing felons to have their rights restored, and Romney answered that violent felons should never be able to vote.

"Very interesting you should say that, because in the state of Massachusetts when you were governor, the law was that not only could violent felons vote after they exhausted their sentences, but they could vote while they were on probation and parole, which was a more liberal position that I took when I voted for the bill in Congress," Santorum responded.


I actually had to go and double check that Santorum actually said that. Not because of you, but because I didn't think Santorum had any independent thoughts or the ability to express them.
 
2012-01-20 09:12:38 AM
Keep your eye on the ball, folks. We still need to vote Santorum because he's crazy, not let Santorum's occasional flash of common sense confuse us.
 
2012-01-20 09:21:37 AM
There are many racists in the Republican party, but Santorum isn't one of them.
 
2012-01-20 09:33:12 AM
This just in: You will PROBABLY find common ground with just about anybody on the planet. Even if you disagree with 99.999% of everything else they say or do.
 
2012-01-20 10:47:05 AM

Tommy Moo: You know, the ACLU is not specifically a liberal organization.


www.physicianschoiceinsurance.com
 
2012-01-20 11:23:23 AM

bugontherug: rynthetyn: back in the early '90s the ACLU made the offer to pro-life groups in Florida to get involved in fighting the protest buffer zone injunctions keeping people from protesting within a certain distance of abortion clinics. The ACLU obviously wanted to get involved because protest buffer zones are a terrible precedent for free speech,

No they're not.

Free speech buffer zone injunctions are a sound compromise between competing constitutional values. The government has always had the right to impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech. You've no right to speed down a residential in the middle of the night blaring "Born in the USA" out of giant speakers in the back of your truck, no matter what your intended political message. Neither do anti-choice protesters have any right to use "free speech" as an excuse to obstruct the constitutionally protected activity that takes place in abortion clinics, or to harass people who seek to use their services.


The ACLU clearly disagrees with you, considering that they wanted to take the case. You, however, are letting your bias against the particular speech color your opinion. Unpopular speech on public sidewalks is precisely the speech that needs to be protected.
 
Displayed 50 of 58 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report